This is a collection of poems, written during the author's time away at university. The collection, titled Illusions, is about the deceptions and illusions perpetrated by people, about themselves, both to others and to themselves.

On a cold December morning in 2008, representatives of nearly a hundred states as well as dozens of civil society members, gathered in Oslo City Hall to witness the signing of a treaty that marked a moment of triumph and signaled a ray of hope for humanitarian ideals. The treaty would outlaw a weapon that had been in use since the turn of the previous century, one that had destroyed the livelihoods of people for decades after its use, one that disproportionately targeted civilians, especially children. For decades humanitarian organizations sought to limit the use of these weapons, but international consensus on the issue was hard to come by. However, where many agreements failed and diplomatic processes stalled, the campaign to ban cluster munitions succeeded. Despite strong opposition from major military powers, 107 countries met in Dublin in May 2008 to negotiate and adopt a treaty prohibiting the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions, which was signed on December 3, 2008. As the United Kingdom’s Secretary Of State For Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs, the Hon. David Miliband pointed out, “in less than two years…over one hundred countries have come together to conceive, plan, negotiate, agree, and now sign the most significant disarmament treaty of recent years”. The Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted despite strong objections from many major players in the international system, and blatant opposition from the US diplomatic machine. How was this accomplished, and are there any wider lessons to be learnt from it?

Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, has been given several titles – ‘the good Nazi’, ‘Hitler’s architect’, ‘future Reichchancellor’, and even ‘the only penitent defendant at Nuremberg’. He presented many faces to the world, but which one was genuine? Speer was extensively involved in the Nazi party, both as Hitler’s architect and the Minister for Armaments, and through his contributions to the illegal war waged by the regime. Thus, the question naturally arises: did Speer receive adequate punishment? The events leading up to the Nuremberg trial, and the trial itself, provides clues to answering these questions: what can we learn about the personality of Speer from the evidence available, and why does it matter? In the years since the trial, biographers have been fascinated with the life of Speer, and have attempted to understand the man behind the enigma. The reason for the fascination is as much for his proximity to Hitler and the regime as it is for his actions at the end of the war. Were they justifiable? Was Speer’s biggest flaw his ambition and his turning away from obviously inhumane acts? Or did Speer manage to pull off the ultimate conjuring trick, convincing the court of his unintentional involvement, all the while wholeheartedly supporting the Nazi regimes’ treatment of those they oppressed?